Environmental groups fight DEP pipeline decision

This map shows the approximate route and facility locations for Sunoco Logistics' Mariner East 1 and 2 pipeline projects, which will ship natural gas liquids from the Marcellus and Utica shale areas to the company’s Marcus Hook complex near Philadelphia.

Sunoco Logistics

This map shows the approximate route and facility locations for Sunoco Logistics' Mariner East 1 and 2 pipeline projects, which will ship natural gas liquids from the Marcellus and Utica shale areas to the company’s Marcus Hook complex near Philadelphia.

Environmental groups on Tuesday announced they have appealed a state decision to issue permits that would allow Sunoco Logistics LP to construct its 350-mile Mariner East 2 pipeline.

The groups filed their objections with the Environmental Hearing Board, a specialized court established to hear appeals on DEP actions. The case is assigned to Judge Bernard A. Labuskes Jr., a Pittsburgh native who lives in Cumberland County.

A hearing for a temporary stay on pipeline construction is scheduled for Thursday in Harrisburg.

Sunoco Logistics was not immediately available for comment.

The company’s 20-inch pipeline would run parallel to its 12-inch Mariner East line, both carrying propane, ethane and butane to the Marcus Hook plant near Philadelphia.

According to the DEP permit, the pipeline would cross about 270 properties in Jeannette, Murrysville and the eight townships: Rostraver, South Huntingdon, Sewickley, Hempfield, Penn, Salem, Loyalhanna and Derry. Before Sunoco Logistics can move forward with construction, it must gain Army Corps of Engineers approval.

“Sunoco’s permit applications were woefully incomplete, inaccurate and contradictory, and DEP’s review and approval was utterly inadequate,” said Joseph Minott, executive director and chief counsel of the Clean Air Council.

“What DEP has authorized with these permits is the destruction of Pennsylvania streams and wetlands, the endangerment of the public and great damage to both public and private property,” Minott’s statement says.

DEP does not comment on pending litigation, agency spokeswoman Lauren Fraley wrote in an email.

According to the Clean Air Council, Sunoco has received 262 incident reports and 32 enforcement actions from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The company also has received 17 Notice of Probable Violation orders amounting to $2.3 million in fines.

Dillon Carr is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-850-1298.

Dillon Carr is a Tribune-Review reporter. You can contact Dillon at 724-850-1298, dcarr@tribweb.com or via Twitter .

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our
Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent
via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.